Michigan v. Minnesota
 

Was asked to post these 3 plays:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/jb4ISaw6EF0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/aKZzk0s4xdY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/aqAO66N2s3c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What was the final call on the elbow? At worst it looks like a common foul(NFHS).

Second play...I can hear a coach 3 miles away screaming for the (non-existant) foul.

Also curious as to what the final call was on that play. I don't see how common foul is an option in NFHS. Contact above the shoulders as a result of swinging the elbow is at minimum intentional.

This play however, involves elbow movement that is a natural part of passing the basketball. I find it very dubious to penalize the offensive player in this situation but it is an interesting play based on the wording of the rule and point of emphasis.

There was no call on the play and properly so. It was not very inadvertent and making a pass. They looked at the monitor it to see if anything took place and ruled nothing should be called.

Peace

That's my thinking too. I dont think this is what the NFHS is wanting to address with the elbow issue. I think they are worried about the "chicken wing", not this play.

Incidental contact
 

I know the NCAA-W have determined you can have incidental contact with a moving elbow. Not ALL contact with a moving elbow is a foul. This was the first point in the Major Officiating Concerns for this season. I believe this is a perfect example of this.

I agree. This was absolutely incidental and a no call at any level.

I was just replying to the poster who said this was "at worse a common foul in NFHS." If you are going to call a foul here, which you shouldn't, but if you do; it cannot be a common foul per the rule. It must be at least intentional.

AndI can easily see some of my colleagues at the HS level calling this intentional because they are taking the elbow rule and POE too literally.

I think there will need to be some further clarification to the rule moving forward.

There is no "per the rule" here(NFHS), because this only exists as a POE and powerpoint presentation.

Well if you want to play the semantics game then sure.

But it is a POE in this year's rules book and this is the language every official in my association received from our interpreter via our commissioner:

"Any elbow in movement that contacts an opponent above the shoulders must be ruled an intentional foul, at minimum. If the elbow contact is deemed excessive, savage, or violent, the contact may be ruled flagrant. Under no circumstances may officials rule such contact a player-control foul, since a player-control foul is, by definition, a common foul."

So if a coach ask me why I called an intentional foul on his player for elbow contact I am going to say "by rule it must be an intentional foul, at minimum....."

That's fine. We use "should" here, as does the POE.

Well, it is not semantics when the NF never changed the rule. They certainly gave an interpretation, but did so without changing the language of the rule. Nothing in the definition of Intentional Foul has changed or said that any elbow contact or certain elbow contact is an to be only an Intentional Foul. And if they do not put in the language after this year, we will be right back to where we were before. And any new official will not have any reference point.

And since this obviously came from the NCAA level, why not change the rule like the NCAA did? The NCAA supported their ruling under their rules.

Peace

I wish we were doing the same. I have heard, though not confirmed, that 4 of the 5 ejections for flagrant elbow contact in my association this year have been overturned from the standpoint of the player having to sit out the next game per our state's governing body rules.

Valid points.

I'm in agreement the NF should change the rule and said earlier they needed to further clarify the interpretation and guidance. NCAA and the NBA have much better language on elbow contact IMO.

But based on what we have been told here I'm telling a coach "by rule" if only because saying "by our interpretation of the POE and guidance...." takes too long.

I get you and Sniper's point though.

Why did the person who asked you want Plays 2 and 3 posted?

I have nothing on all 3 plays.

Examples of good no calls

What is the call after the elbow in the first play? Did they call a block on Blue 1 near the basket? L and C both have a foul. Not quite sure what that signal is that the L had.

And that is exactly why some states have interpreted "movement" to really only mean certain types of movement. This is absolutely not an intentional foul (for F1) and should not be called as one. In fact, if I had anything, it might be illegal use of nose.

The L was trying to say the defender wasn't vertical. His signal looked ridiculous as given, the right signal, if it had actually been the right call, would be illegal use of hands. But he was in a horrible position to determine that anyway and got it wrong IMO. The defender may well have committed a block and that may be what the C had but given that the L was eager to make a call with a non-existant signal and the C held, we'll never know.

As a Washingtonian I approve this message...;)

He called a foul for the defender not being vertical. Now what he used was not an approved signal, but I don't have a real big problem with the signal as it more aptly described what he called the defender for.

No call, no call, and it could have been a travel.

That is what I thought but wasn't 100% sure. I don't think the defender did anything wrong especially on the initial contact. I think I would have had a no call or PC for displacing the defender. I don't do much 3 man but in this case, it should have been C's call, right?

If you watched the game live or the broadcast, the second play was seen as a foul by the commentators and when the replay was shown or angle on the end line was shown, then they backed off. But again you heard the, "There was a lot of contact on that play right?" And that play lead to an easy basket on the other end as well.

The third play it was talked about as a travel. Now as officials we should know these things already, but I have seen officials call that play a travel.

Peace

No problem with the L making the call. Look at where the players were at the time of the foul -- at the top of the restricted area circle -- if the L can't get a proper angle and make this call he shouldn't be out there. It's a good second whistle from the C, but in the games I work we're giving that to the L that deep in the paint all day long.

And it's clearly a foul -- the arms are down, he commits the foul, and then he gets the arms vertical -- they may have ended up that way, but they weren't that way when he fouled the player.

I also have no problem with the signal, but I've always been a proponent of getting away from the five or six signals in the chart and using more descriptive signals, so of course I would say that.

Likewise...and I've been known to use the "hit to the head" or tripping signal when the occasion calls for it. 100 times more descriptive signals then "illegal use of arms" or a "blocking" or "pushing" signal.

I am not a fan of that signal, but I absolutely know why he called that foul. I would love it when the NF gets off their high horse or my state would stop insisting only the signals listed should be used. There are other ways to describe fouls and it tells everyone why you actually made the call, not some signal that tells us nothing.

I also do not have a problem with the call from the L here either. It was a secondary player and it was in the lane.

Peace

+1
And I'm glad they were finally added to the NCAA manuals. They need to get it in the HS books now. Somebody call somebody.

I've always found this funny. We've been pounded "only use the signals in the book. Unauthorized signals are not to be used."

Then, one year, "we've added new signals because you've been using them and they work."

But, "only use the new approved signals". Well, how will we know if other new signals might also be more appropriate if we don't use them?

+1 And what would be an example of a signal "not working"?

Well, I can think of a potential signal for "hitting the ball with a fist" that might not be appropriate. ;)

The only time I see the arms down, there was no contact. By the time there was contact, the arms were up.

I do not think that lead had the angle to see how straight up nor not straight up they were.

I don't disagree with you in general, but that one looks horrible.

The other one I've seen is a no call accompanied by the arms being held straight up -- I've seen that a number of times at the D-1 level this year and I'm not sure how I feel about that one.

This signal has been used in the NBA and D-I for a couple of years I'd say. I also have no problem with this. Used in a simple, understated fashion, it lets everyone know that the official ruled verticality.

I'm on the fence with this one. I remember Welmer and others using both of the "straight up" and "not straight up" signals in years past in the B1G, and thinking it looked goofy, and that the non-call should've been selling the call, so to speak.

I view it the same as the not closely guarded signal. Sure, one could make the case that not having a count means the player is not closely guarded, but the signal conveys that the official isn't counting not because he's not paying attention, but rather some element needed for the count is missing.

I view this signal the same way...the official didn't pass on the play because he wasn't paying attention...rather he saw the contact and judged the defender as going straight up and straight down. One also has to know when to use it so that he/she doesn't give the signal and have a partner come in with a whistle.

Regardless of philosophy, I think your last comment is key, and has been stated basically verbatim in the NCAAW manual this year - that supplementary signals can sometimes be effective and useful, but that they need to be delivered at a delayed cadence.